Is the Windows XP Firewall enough?

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I know this is an old topic, but I thought I'd try to get the latest
opinions on this. I'm trying to decide whether to get another firewall.
Everybody says the problem with the XP firewall is that although it controls
incoming connections, it doesn't control outgoing connections.

I already have the free ZoneAlarm firewall on my Win2K computers, which
works fine. And I could add it to my new XP Home Edition computer. But
apparently some people complain that ZoneAlarm adds log files that grow
large, etc. etc. so I figured I'd avoid adding another firewall *if* it
wasn't really necessary.

What's the current consensus, if any?

Thanks for any inputs,

John
12 answers Last reply
More about windows firewall enough
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    I have ZoneAlarm, free version, on an xp sys, it causes no problems

    "JMF" <jfavaro@tin.it> wrote in message
    news:%23lsCjNHtFHA.1028@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > I know this is an old topic, but I thought I'd try to get the latest
    > opinions on this. I'm trying to decide whether to get another firewall.
    > Everybody says the problem with the XP firewall is that although it
    controls
    > incoming connections, it doesn't control outgoing connections.
    >
    > I already have the free ZoneAlarm firewall on my Win2K computers, which
    > works fine. And I could add it to my new XP Home Edition computer. But
    > apparently some people complain that ZoneAlarm adds log files that grow
    > large, etc. etc. so I figured I'd avoid adding another firewall *if* it
    > wasn't really necessary.
    >
    > What's the current consensus, if any?
    >
    > Thanks for any inputs,
    >
    > John
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    I use a router and no software firewall.

    --

    Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
    www.webtree.ca/windowsxp


    "JMF" <jfavaro@tin.it> wrote in message
    news:%23lsCjNHtFHA.1028@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >I know this is an old topic, but I thought I'd try to get the latest
    > opinions on this. I'm trying to decide whether to get another firewall.
    > Everybody says the problem with the XP firewall is that although it
    > controls
    > incoming connections, it doesn't control outgoing connections.
    >
    > I already have the free ZoneAlarm firewall on my Win2K computers, which
    > works fine. And I could add it to my new XP Home Edition computer. But
    > apparently some people complain that ZoneAlarm adds log files that grow
    > large, etc. etc. so I figured I'd avoid adding another firewall *if* it
    > wasn't really necessary.
    >
    > What's the current consensus, if any?
    >
    > Thanks for any inputs,
    >
    > John
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    I use a hardware firewall in my router and a software firewall (Sygate
    Personal Edition) - along with AVG Free and the Microsoft AntiSpyware Beta.
    My system is on 24 hours a day - and I get hit with an attempted access at
    least every other day.

    Over the last 6 months of running this setup I've only had a few instances
    of spyware and only 1 Trojan - and all were caught in time.

    I've used Sygate since before Windows came out with a firewall. My main
    objection to the Windows firewall is that you can't customize the permissions
    as much, or a easily, as with Sygate.

    "JMF" wrote:

    > I know this is an old topic, but I thought I'd try to get the latest
    > opinions on this. I'm trying to decide whether to get another firewall.
    > Everybody says the problem with the XP firewall is that although it controls
    > incoming connections, it doesn't control outgoing connections.
    >
    > I already have the free ZoneAlarm firewall on my Win2K computers, which
    > works fine. And I could add it to my new XP Home Edition computer. But
    > apparently some people complain that ZoneAlarm adds log files that grow
    > large, etc. etc. so I figured I'd avoid adding another firewall *if* it
    > wasn't really necessary.
    >
    > What's the current consensus, if any?
    >
    > Thanks for any inputs,
    >
    > John
    >
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Oops! Forgot to add...Don't run the 2 firewalls at the same time. Although
    this may not affect your system's performance - there is the potential for a
    conflict between the 2 programs.

    Also, if you've got a firewall problem - how're you going to know which one
    it's in?

    "JMF" wrote:

    > I know this is an old topic, but I thought I'd try to get the latest
    > opinions on this. I'm trying to decide whether to get another firewall.
    > Everybody says the problem with the XP firewall is that although it controls
    > incoming connections, it doesn't control outgoing connections.
    >
    > I already have the free ZoneAlarm firewall on my Win2K computers, which
    > works fine. And I could add it to my new XP Home Edition computer. But
    > apparently some people complain that ZoneAlarm adds log files that grow
    > large, etc. etc. so I figured I'd avoid adding another firewall *if* it
    > wasn't really necessary.
    >
    > What's the current consensus, if any?
    >
    > Thanks for any inputs,
    >
    > John
    >
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    This is a little different,

    I use the XP firewall along with Norton System Works - Anti virus program.
    Norton protects incoming and outgoing mail so the XP firewall does just
    fine.

    I also use Microsoft Anti Spy ware.
    I haven't had any problems with this setup.

    Updates are automatic on all of my programs.

    Jerry

    "JMF" <jfavaro@tin.it> wrote in message
    news:%23lsCjNHtFHA.1028@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >I know this is an old topic, but I thought I'd try to get the latest
    > opinions on this. I'm trying to decide whether to get another firewall.
    > Everybody says the problem with the XP firewall is that although it
    > controls
    > incoming connections, it doesn't control outgoing connections.
    >
    > I already have the free ZoneAlarm firewall on my Win2K computers, which
    > works fine. And I could add it to my new XP Home Edition computer. But
    > apparently some people complain that ZoneAlarm adds log files that grow
    > large, etc. etc. so I figured I'd avoid adding another firewall *if* it
    > wasn't really necessary.
    >
    > What's the current consensus, if any?
    >
    > Thanks for any inputs,
    >
    > John
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    To clarify this a little, do not run two software firewalls at the
    same time. A hardware router firewall and a software firewall is OK
    together.

    Brian

    "usasma" <usasma@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:ED8C4515-D1E7-4C97-A48E-BCF0AF5B286B@microsoft.com...
    > Oops! Forgot to add...Don't run the 2 firewalls at the same time.
    Although
    > this may not affect your system's performance - there is the
    potential for a
    > conflict between the 2 programs.
    >
    > Also, if you've got a firewall problem - how're you going to know
    which one
    > it's in?
    >
    > "JMF" wrote:
    >
    > > I know this is an old topic, but I thought I'd try to get the
    latest
    > > opinions on this. I'm trying to decide whether to get another
    firewall.
    > > Everybody says the problem with the XP firewall is that although
    it controls
    > > incoming connections, it doesn't control outgoing connections.
    > >
    > > I already have the free ZoneAlarm firewall on my Win2K computers,
    which
    > > works fine. And I could add it to my new XP Home Edition computer.
    But
    > > apparently some people complain that ZoneAlarm adds log files that
    grow
    > > large, etc. etc. so I figured I'd avoid adding another firewall
    *if* it
    > > wasn't really necessary.
    > >
    > > What's the current consensus, if any?
    > >
    > > Thanks for any inputs,
    > >
    > > John
    > >
    > >
    > >
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    I also have a netgear router, but I still experience the v.occassional
    probe.
    But by the same token I dont know what a popup is :)

    "Harry Ohrn" <harry---@webtree.ca> wrote in message
    news:eFjGgvHtFHA.3752@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > I use a router and no software firewall.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
    > www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
    >
    >
    > "JMF" <jfavaro@tin.it> wrote in message
    > news:%23lsCjNHtFHA.1028@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > >I know this is an old topic, but I thought I'd try to get the latest
    > > opinions on this. I'm trying to decide whether to get another firewall.
    > > Everybody says the problem with the XP firewall is that although it
    > > controls
    > > incoming connections, it doesn't control outgoing connections.
    > >
    > > I already have the free ZoneAlarm firewall on my Win2K computers, which
    > > works fine. And I could add it to my new XP Home Edition computer. But
    > > apparently some people complain that ZoneAlarm adds log files that grow
    > > large, etc. etc. so I figured I'd avoid adding another firewall *if* it
    > > wasn't really necessary.
    > >
    > > What's the current consensus, if any?
    > >
    > > Thanks for any inputs,
    > >
    > > John
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    In article <uqW9heItFHA.460@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, jerrym526
    @cablenet.com says...
    > This is a little different,
    >
    > I use the XP firewall along with Norton System Works - Anti virus program.
    > Norton protects incoming and outgoing mail so the XP firewall does just
    > fine.
    >
    > I also use Microsoft Anti Spy ware.
    > I haven't had any problems with this setup.
    >
    > Updates are automatic on all of my programs.

    I would have to suggest, after decades of doing this type of work, that
    no user controlled firewall on any PC is ENOUGH. If you want enough, get
    a NAT Router and install it as the first device, then make sure you
    follow safe browsing/downloading practices, and make sure you are not
    running as an Administrator level account when playing around.

    No personal firewall product, running on the same machine you use, where
    you get to choose on the fly, is going to protect you against all forms
    of intrusion - you are bound to make a mistake at some point.


    --

    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d8a27bce6d56477989f85@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
    > In article <uqW9heItFHA.460@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, jerrym526
    > @cablenet.com says...
    > > This is a little different,
    > >
    > > I use the XP firewall along with Norton System Works - Anti virus
    program.
    > > Norton protects incoming and outgoing mail so the XP firewall does just
    > > fine.
    > >
    > > I also use Microsoft Anti Spy ware.
    > > I haven't had any problems with this setup.
    > >
    > > Updates are automatic on all of my programs.
    >
    > I would have to suggest, after decades of doing this type of work, that
    > no user controlled firewall on any PC is ENOUGH. If you want enough, get
    > a NAT Router and install it as the first device, then make sure you
    > follow safe browsing/downloading practices, and make sure you are not
    > running as an Administrator level account when playing around.

    Interesting .. could you elaborate on that last point? What are the dangers
    of running as an Administrator level account?

    John
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    In article <#iWJUYJtFHA.1172@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, jfavaro@tin.it
    says...
    >
    > "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1d8a27bce6d56477989f85@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
    > > In article <uqW9heItFHA.460@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, jerrym526
    > > @cablenet.com says...
    > > > This is a little different,
    > > >
    > > > I use the XP firewall along with Norton System Works - Anti virus
    > program.
    > > > Norton protects incoming and outgoing mail so the XP firewall does just
    > > > fine.
    > > >
    > > > I also use Microsoft Anti Spy ware.
    > > > I haven't had any problems with this setup.
    > > >
    > > > Updates are automatic on all of my programs.
    > >
    > > I would have to suggest, after decades of doing this type of work, that
    > > no user controlled firewall on any PC is ENOUGH. If you want enough, get
    > > a NAT Router and install it as the first device, then make sure you
    > > follow safe browsing/downloading practices, and make sure you are not
    > > running as an Administrator level account when playing around.
    >
    > Interesting .. could you elaborate on that last point? What are the dangers
    > of running as an Administrator level account?

    You don't have to take my word for any of the above - just google and
    search for best practices.

    In the case of running as an Administrator, if something gets loose or
    you run something you didn't mean to run, it has full administrator
    access to the system - and if you are a domain administrator, well,
    that's really bad.

    If you browse the web using IE in default mode, you will run into many
    things which want to do bad things to your system, running as a "User"
    means they have less chance to do damage.

    In the case of limited User accounts, they don't have permission to
    install some applications, make system changes, etc...

    --

    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    JMF wrote:
    > I know this is an old topic, but I thought I'd try to get the latest
    > opinions on this. I'm trying to decide whether to get another firewall.
    > Everybody says the problem with the XP firewall is that although it controls
    > incoming connections, it doesn't control outgoing connections.
    >
    > I already have the free ZoneAlarm firewall on my Win2K computers, which
    > works fine. And I could add it to my new XP Home Edition computer. But
    > apparently some people complain that ZoneAlarm adds log files that grow
    > large, etc. etc. so I figured I'd avoid adding another firewall *if* it
    > wasn't really necessary.
    >
    > What's the current consensus, if any?
    >
    > Thanks for any inputs,
    >
    > John
    >
    >


    The song remains the same...

    WinXP's built-in firewall is adequate at stopping incoming attacks,
    and hiding your ports from probes. What WinXP SP2's firewall does not
    do, is protect you from any Trojans or spyware that you (or someone
    else using your computer) might download and install inadvertently.
    It doesn't monitor out-going traffic at all, other than to check for
    IP-spoofing, much less block (or at even ask you about) the bad or the
    questionable out-going signals. It assumes that any application you
    have on your hard drive is there because you want it there, and
    therefore has your "permission" to access the Internet. Further,
    because the Windows Firewall is a "stateful" firewall, it will also
    assume that any incoming traffic that's a direct response to a
    Trojan's or spyware's out-going signal is also authorized.

    ZoneAlarm, Kerio, or Sygate are all much better than WinXP's
    built-in firewall, and are much more easily configured, and there are
    free versions of each readily available. Even the commercially
    available Symantec's Norton Personal Firewall is superior by far,
    although it does take a heavier toll of system performance then do
    ZoneAlarm or Sygate.


    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    The windows xp firewall does not work well at all i use norton
    "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d8a27bce6d56477989f85@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
    > In article <uqW9heItFHA.460@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, jerrym526
    > @cablenet.com says...
    >> This is a little different,
    >>
    >> I use the XP firewall along with Norton System Works - Anti virus
    >> program.
    >> Norton protects incoming and outgoing mail so the XP firewall does just
    >> fine.
    >>
    >> I also use Microsoft Anti Spy ware.
    >> I haven't had any problems with this setup.
    >>
    >> Updates are automatic on all of my programs.
    >
    > I would have to suggest, after decades of doing this type of work, that
    > no user controlled firewall on any PC is ENOUGH. If you want enough, get
    > a NAT Router and install it as the first device, then make sure you
    > follow safe browsing/downloading practices, and make sure you are not
    > running as an Administrator level account when playing around.
    >
    > No personal firewall product, running on the same machine you use, where
    > you get to choose on the fly, is going to protect you against all forms
    > of intrusion - you are bound to make a mistake at some point.
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > spam999free@rrohio.com
    > remove 999 in order to email me
Ask a new question

Read More

Firewalls Microsoft Windows XP